Skip to main content

tv   The Daily Show With Jon Stewart  Comedy Central  July 20, 2011 1:00pm-1:30pm PDT

1:00 pm
thank you! thank you! good night! good night! [ cheers and applause ] -- captions by vitac -- >> from comedy central's world news headquarters in new york, this is "the daily show" with jon stewart. captioning sponsored by comedy central (cheers and applause) >> jon: welcome to "the daily show," my name is jon stewart. big show. big, big, big, big, big show. our guests tonight, we have on tonight's program pakistan's former president pervez musharraf. my guess is we'll have a delightful beverage and a lovely conversation. (cheers and applause) so let's begin tonight with the on going "news of the world" phone hacking scandal. to get you caught up, a
1:01 pm
seemingly simple story. ma and pa owned newspaper hacking into a murdered little girl's phone and... (laughter). ... paying the police to cover it up. has unfortunately turned ugly. (laughter) as of now, london's two top policemen at scotland yard let's call them officer blu rotton has resigned. andrew colton has been arrested and sunday tragically authorities arrested poor mrs. weasley. (laughter) wait, no that's not mrs. weasley. sorry, tragically, authorities arrested the guy from simply red. yeah, that's it. actually, arrested was rebekah brooks, the woman who ran "news of the world" during the worst of-- as the british call them-- the troubles. (laughter) brooks had already resigned her post friday, ostensibly to spend more time with her rabbit hair dresser. laug(laughter)
1:02 pm
that was a deep cut. i appreciate that that was a deep cut. honestly, it is hard to imagine this story... (laughter). all right. it's hard to imagine this story getting more out of control. >> breaking news. >> on the british hacking scandal, just a short time ago, police say sean hoare-- that's the reporter who first alleged widespread hacking at the now ended news of nation-- he's been found dead in his home. (laughter). >> jon: do you think he died of natural causes or was it murdoch? (ominous music). (applause) well, i'm sure scotland yard's on this case like cream on a... >> right now police say the death is not considered suspicious. (laughter) >> jon: well, i guess the guys
1:03 pm
who were bribed don't think there's anything suspicious in the death of the guy who blew the whistle on the company providing the bribes, i'm satisfied. (laughter) of course, the whole business was prelude to today's main event. rupert murdoch and his son james appearing before parliament's committee on culture, media, sport, and vowel-shaped furniture. (laughter) confess before the u-shaped desk of contrition! don't make us bring in the e! (laughter) the whole day of testimony was amazing but perhaps no moment more remarkable than murdoch interrupting his son's opening statement. >> of the "news of the world" newspaper... >> before you get to that, i would just like to say one sentence. this is the most humble day of my life. (laughter). >> jon: not so humble you couldn't wait for your turn to talk!
1:04 pm
(cheers and applause) by the way, that was before some idiot tried to pie murdoch. the young woman in pink, whose lightning reflex and devastating... her lightning reflex and devastating chuck norris-esque hand speed subdued the miscreant. that woman is, in fact, rupert murdoch's wife wendy. now, i am not a big proponent of the four decade marriage age gap. but... (laughter). ... if ever there was a situation where it would pay dividends... (laughter). ... it would be an ambush like that. of course, the attack occurred after a period of the testimony where murdoch may have appeared somewhat vulnerable. (laughter) what of it?
1:05 pm
crikey, is it over? do we own parliament yet? (laughter) all in all, it's a story tailor made for the 24 hour news culture. big personality, scandal, bribery, hacking, celebrity, death. but one network has been reticent to dumpster dive into any aspect of the story other than their here is disappointment at some of their competitor's behavior. >> we have serious problems in this country right now. we are teetering on default and what do they do? they talk about this. >> virtually every tabloid is guilty of some kind of offense. >> why are so many people piling on? we know it's a hacking scandal. shouldn't we get beyond it? >> the left has been out to get newscorp, especially fox news channel and the murdoch family for years. >> murdoch, who owns it, has apologized but for some reason the public, the media, keeps going over this again and and again. >> the piling on. s. >> this is the biggest case of piling on since the last rugby game i saw. (audience reacts). >> jon: rugby, by the way, if you're going to kiss rupert murdoch's ass with a reference,
1:06 pm
at least call it aussie rules football. (laughter) anyway, i thought you were going to say the biggest case of piling on since common read a poem at the white house. but... (cheers and applause) maybe your competitors are taking an unseemly amount of pleasure. but perhaps they don't have fox's finely tuned sense of pro proportionality. they don't have the ability to spot stories of real criminality and import, like the crimes of, let's say, npr. >> the national public radio executive caught on tape in a bigoted hate-filled rant. >> juan williams fired by npr for saying he gets nervous when flying with muslims. >> the upheaval at npr reached its zenith today. >> president obama still supports giving npr your tax dollar money. >> on the npr scandal, is the left wing media playing that down? >> liberals are intolerant. >> we've linked npr to soros, we know what they're doing over there. >> the corruption is so
1:07 pm
widespread it's succeeded in permeating every area of the mainstream media. >> these crackpots at npr. >> the totalitarian tactics of the left. >> is npr an agent somehow of a jihadist inquisition. (laughter and applause) >> jon: is npr an agent somehow of a jihadist inquisition? i'm going say yes because why else would you bring it up? (laughter) see, that is a reasonably proportioned response. this is overreaction to the murdoch case which what is at most an epic bribery and influence peddling scandal consuming britain's political law enforcement and journalistic establishment is really a waste of everyone's time. (laughter) you know, i know what the problem, is you're jealous. as a newscorp property, you're not upset that your standards have been corrupted by your scandal boner ethic. you're upset they get to have the fun while you get to sit on your hands. this scandal was made for you guys! for god's sake, look at these,
1:08 pm
d.s.k., made men, that's a great one. obama beats weiner. osama bin laden bin west banking. these are priceless puns. imagine the frustration that the pun masters over there must be feeling. they're missing out on the chance to shame a high profile media mogul, make that nasty insinuations about his second in command. indulge in puns about her personal appearance. and the death of a whistle-blower? right! i mean, it's easy. (cheers and applause) it's so easy! poor bastards! now, i'm not suggesting you don't have the balls to confront murdoch on this, i've seen you do it. when this scandal broke in 2009, fox's steve barney yanked murdoch's ass out of sun valley and laid the smack down. >> the story that is really
1:09 pm
buzzing all around the country and ceainly here in new york is that the "news of the world," a news corporation newspaper in britain... >> i'm not talking about that issue at all today. sorry. >> i can, no worries mr. chairman, that's fine with me. (laughter). >> jon: and stay down! we'll be right
1:10 pm
1:11 pm
impressive resume. i see you're flatulent in three languages. graduated top of your gas. [ male announcer ] got gas on your mind? your son rip is on line toot. [ male announcer ] try gas-x. powerful relief from pressure and bloating in a fast-acting chewable.
1:12 pm
gas-x. pressure's off. (cheers and applause). >> jon: welcome back. my guest tonight, he is the former president of pakistan. please welcome back to the program pervez musharraf. sir. (cheers and applause) nice to see you, sir. thank you for joining us. (applause) have a seat. (cheers and applause) nice to see you again. thank you for joining us again. we appreciate it. >> thank you. nice seeing you. >> jon: the last time we... i prepared some refreshments for us. i prepared tea and a twinkie. (laughter) that was our... we have to take it up a notch because of the deterioration of our two country's relationship. (laughter) power aid and balance bars. (laughter) i don't know if you've ever had this. you can have a... would you care for s'mores? >> i'm okay with that. >> jon: (laughs) you're okay with just this?
1:13 pm
i don't blame you, sir. that's probably wise. to your health. >> cheers. (laughter) (cheers and applause) >> jon: a taste sensation. last time you were here, i asked you where osama bin laden was. laug(laughter) laugh now, at the time i believe you held a relatively high-level position in pakistan. (laughter) you mentioned that you didn't know. funny story. (laughter) as it turns out, he was there! in a town called abbottabad. >> yes. >> jon: so... (laughter) ... that was weird. (laughter) don't you think, or... (cheers and applause) what do you think we should... what do you think we should
1:14 pm
think? what do you think... i know that you were upset that we came on to pakistani sovereign territory to do it. we were upset that he was there. how do we bridge this conflict? >> well, first of all, let me clarify. i know that in your program you said i lied to you... >> jon: i mentioned that. >> but the silver lining was that you said you lied to me. so we're on a level playing field. >> jon: well, to be fair, i said that you might have been lying about osama bin laden and i lied about reading your book. (laughter) so we're not so on a level field, but let me ask you this. how is it... explain to us. it's hard for us to imagine a high-level individual like that to be able to ensconce himself in a neighborhood. abbottabad is nice, golf courses, people retire there. it's your palm springs, to some extent. how did it... is it possible that he could have been there and no one knew? >> yes, it is very possible.
1:15 pm
it's very possible because if you even see where he was living and he was not guarded, the intelligence agencies knew or the army knew, would he... would they leave him there unguarded so that he escapes and when c.i.a. comes and occupies a safe house close by, would... if i i.s.i. knew or our intelligence knew would relet him escape because... >> jon: but isn't that why we didn't... the u.s. didn't tell pakistan because they didn't... the trust had become so broken at that point they thought if they did tell that the possibility existed that he would get away. >> i think if i.s.i. knew and there was complicity then they would have known that c.i.a. has occupied a safe house very close and if they knew that they would have allowed hem to escape. as it is he was sitting there
1:16 pm
unguarded. why would the army or intelligence allow him to be in a house where he could escape, come and go. such an important individual. why wouldn't they use him for that matter if he was there for five years why wouldn't i use him for some leverage for myself. >> jon: okay. well, i guess i'll ask you then. (laughs) it's just hard for me... he was living in a million-dollar house. they say it was the only house in the neighbor that burned their own trash. if a youngster kicked a soccer ball over the wall they just paid the youngster. people in the neighborhood are like "weird folks living there." (laughter) didn't it raise the... this is... abbottabad is the town that basically houses pakistan's version of west point. your... the general that you had to head up the i.s.i. under your
1:17 pm
regime was the head of the abbottabad military facility, was he not? >> well different training institution, yes, indeed. same as west point. the pakistan military academy. and other training institutions. there's no combat troops. however this is a hill station this is a tourist resort and all people going to the northern areas into the mountains are from this. it's a town of about 800,000 people, civilians and military all intermingled. there are no walled compounds as we presume there was a garrisoned town. not at all. so therefore... and then since he was not using any telephones it was only human intelligence that you... one was banking on. human intelligence is if the people around know... >> jon: . >> they said they didn't have suspicions about one weird house where they burned their trash and don't have a phone. let me put it this way, would you be suspicious of us if this
1:18 pm
is reversed and we are harboring john... i don't know what... who the corresponding figure would be and he lived a half... you know, a half mile away from west point or a half mile away from langley air force base and we went to you and said la nina. wouldn't you think we were being disingenuous? because you trust us? >> there are intelligence failures, this is not a case of complicity. it's certainly a case of negligence. after all, if you go back to 9/11, wasn't c.i.a. the most powerful organization? thigh didn't know 18 people were training to attack your world trade center. >> no, they did, they just didn't tell anybody else. >> they didn't know four aircraft were hijackd from four different airfields. they didn't know two of them left... >> jon: but you would have to admit there is a history of suspicion not just from the united states but from england
1:19 pm
and india that the i.s.i. has ties to some militant groups some associated with al qaeda, some associated with kashmiri islamists, some associated with the ha cabny network in afghanistan. you would at mid-there is a lot of suspicion coalesced around this. haqqani. this is not an enormous left turn to suggest there might be elements within the pakistani intelligence agencies that have sympathies. i mean, for god's sakes, we tier ones that worked with them to make holy war in afghanistan when we were fighting the russians. so we know that it's possible. >> rogue elements within a few of them is possible. but if you think i.s.i. as an organization had some other plans than what it is showing, that is wrong. that is what is objectionable. that is an intelligence organization which has been delivering since 1979 when we
1:20 pm
fought the soviets together and it was i.s.i. in the forefront they're delivering. then onwards. now i.s.i. does whatever the policy of the government is whatever they are ordered to do. when you're talked of india, that's a different story all together. i.s.i. and india have always been a confrontationist course since our independence so don't talk of that. that's a different issue all together. here we are talking of i.s.i. abetting or being complicit with al qaeda and taliban who have killed 4,000 of our soldiers. who has killed 4,000 army men of pakistan? who has killed about 300 i.s.i. people? who has done that? some canadians? (laughter). >> jon: can i say this? can i say this? canadians are a ruthless people. (cheers and applause) i would not put it past them. all right, we're going to take a commercial break. when we come back, more from pervez
1:21 pm
1:22 pm
1:23 pm
1:24 pm
(cheers and applause). >> jon: we're back with pervez musharraf. sir, now, our country right now, we need each other, clearly we need each other in this region, especially since we have a plan. and i really hope that this... obviously i'm not a general, i'm not involved in high-level intelligence. (laughter) but we may be leaving afghanistan within the next 50 or 60 years. (laughter) and if that occurs, what is pakistan's interest in the taliban in that, you know, what is the situation that, as you see it with our maybe pulling back a little bit? >> that's a serious issue to be considered, especially to... it will have implications on pakistan. if you quit in 2014, whatever has been declared, obviously the best strategy for the taliban or the enemy, al qaeda and taliban, is to lie low, let time pass, and then rise again. so declaring... giving a
1:25 pm
timeline, i have always been saying that it ought to be effected, what effects do we want to create? you can't have it time related because then you'll be in the hands of the enemy, i would say. and if you leave in 2014 without stabilizing afghanistan, what will happen then? we need to visualize. >> well, the problem is... the difficulty i think for america is afghanistan hasn't been stable since, i guess, hannibal. (laughter) so the idea that we could stay there... (laughter). they don't appear to want to be stabilized so i mean... i guess the problem is can we really do that? can we do that for a country and is pakistan going to give them the room that they would need to do that or would they perhaps try and have some influence with the taliban adds well? >> well, first of all, i think afghanistan was stable since
1:26 pm
centuries. >> jon: well, obviously i was being humerus. (laughter) ... humorous. >> they had an agreement. the ethnic groups decided to stay together under the monarchy. the problems started 1979 when the monarch was... when the king was deposed and that's where this... where the war that they had, that glue that held them together was no more than there and the trouble started when the soviets came in. so that's what we're trying to repair now. and, indeed, they are not a country which can have democracy as enough the united states but they have to have their own form of democracy tailored to their own requirements, governance, tail orred to an afghanistan environment. that's what we need to have there. >> well, let's... we're going to go... can you stick around for about five, ten minutes and we can talk on the interwebs?
1:27 pm
pervez musharraf. we'll be right back with more. (cheers and applause)
1:28 pm
1:29 pm
(cheers and applause). >> jon: that's our show. tomorrow night at 11:00, steve carell will be here. here is your moment of zen. >> i'm hanging around with my
disc Borrow a DVD of this show
info Stream Only
Uploaded by
TV Archive
on 7/20/2011